NOMINAL INDEX
Noori And Another v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 92
Raees vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 93
In Re vs. Shri Hari Narayan Pandey Advocate 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 94
Hasnen vs Union of India and 5 others and connected petitions 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 95
Kirti Verma vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 96
Sachin Arya @ Sachin Bhartiya And Another vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 97
Seema Gupta vs State of U.P and a connected jail appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 98
Sanu @ Rashid vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 99
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case Title: Noori And Another v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 92
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 92
While dealing with a bunch of petitions relating to interfaith couples in live-in relationships, the Allahabad High Court has held that the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 does not prohibit inter-religion relationships, be it interfaith live-in relationships or interfaith marriage.
Holding that right to choose a partner and right to live with dignity are part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Justice Vivek Kumar Singh held,
“Right to live with a person of his/her choice, irrespective of religion professed by them, is intrinsic to right to life and personal liberty. Interference in a personal relationship, would constitute a serious encroachment into the right to freedom of choice of the two individuals. This Court fails to understand that if the law permits two persons even of the same sex to live together peacefully then neither any individual nor a family nor even State can have objection to hetrosexual relationship of two major individuals who out of their own free will are living together.”
Case title - Raees vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 93
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 93
The Allahabad High Court acquitted a man who spent approximately 23 years in jail on the charges of the gruesome murder of his wife and 3 children, as it concluded that the prosecution's evidence did not conclusively prove that the offence was committed by him.
In its 10-page order, a bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay said that the case was a sad commentary on our criminal justice delivery system and it required introspection.
Case title - In Re vs. Shri Hari Narayan Pandey Advocate 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 94
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 94
The Allahabad High Court warned social media users against hurling online abuses directed at the judiciary that go beyond the defence of fair comment or informed criticism of a judgment.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava added that if the court takes cognizance of such posts in contempt jurisdiction, the same will attract strict legal consequences.
"…we do wish to remind the public to be cautious in future, because words that are most unambiguously contumacious, circulate on the social media, which, as and when, taken cognizance of in our contempt jurisdiction, may expose the contemnor to penalties of the law, which the Court may not hesitate to impose", the Court remarked.
Case title - Hasnen vs Union of India and 5 others and connected petitions 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 95
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 95
The Allahabad High Court upheld the detention of 3 persons under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980, who were accused of illegally slaughtering cattle in the town of Kalpi, Jalaun, in March 2025, on the first day of Chaitra Navratri, coinciding with the very event of Eid.
A bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Devendra Singh-I noted that the alleged act, precisely timed at a confluence of major religious festivals in a nation as ancient and as diverse as ours, was not a mere "law and order" problem and it squarely fell within the ambit of "public order".
Case title - Kirti Verma vs State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 96
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 96
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that the directions for fresh recording of a statement under Section 183 BNSS before the Magistrate can be given only under exceptional circumstances.
"…the power is not a routine or an automatic power but is exercised by High Court or Supreme Court to prevent abuse of process, to secure ends of justice or rectify grave procedural irregularities that could lead to miscarriage of justice", a bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta and Justice Achal Sachdev remarked.
Case title - Sachin Arya @ Sachin Bhartiya And Another vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 97
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 97
The Allahabad High Court slammed the UP Police officials by observing that they have "no respect for law of the land" as they arrested a man, booked for offences punishable by less than seven years, in direct violation of the Supreme Court's Satendra Kumar Antil Guidelines 2026.
The Court also pulled up the state police officials for delaying the petitioner's release by approximately 20 hours despite the HC's explicit orders (on February 12) to release him 'forthwith'.
Case title - Seema Gupta vs State of U.P and a connected jail appeal 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 98
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 98
Taking 'judicial notice' of the fact that a daughter's pregnancy outside wedlock for an average Indian is a 'nightmare' which invites 'uncontrollable' reactions from parents, mostly violent, the Allahabad High Court upheld the life imprisonment of a couple convicted of killing their minor daughter and their 28-year-old tenant.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi dismissed the criminal appeals filed by the wife and husband duo who killed their 15-year-old daughter and their tenant with whom she allegedly had an affair, as they were upset over her pregnancy.
Case title - Sanu @ Rashid vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 99
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 99
The Allahabad High Court observed that a Judicial Officer, while discharging his judicial function, is above the District Magistrate or District Police Chief and even the political head of a State, and that disregarding his order is 'unpardonable'.
The Court added that such disregard for the orders passed by a Judicial Officer is not merely contempt of court but a direct challenge to the authority of law.
Also from the order : Faulty CCTVs A 'Routine Feature' In UP: Allahabad High Court Deems Surprise Police Station Inspections Part Of CJMs' Official Duty
OTHER UPDATES FROM THE HC
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has once again expressed serious dismay over an FIR lodged by the Uttar Pradesh Police, which the HC found to be heavily borrowed from movie scripts.
Hearing a writ petition challenging an FIR lodged under the UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, the Court observed that state police personnel appear to be relying on a standard, highly exaggerated script to file criminal cases "left and right".
The Allahabad High Court granted interim relief to Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati and his disciple in the POCSO Case and stayed theur arrest for now.
Reserving verdict on their anticipatory bail plea, a bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar Sinha directed that the applicants shall not be arrested until the final disposal of the anticipatory bail application.
The bench, however, has asked them to cooperate in the investigation.
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court observed that due to tiredness, hunger and physical incapacity, it was unable to dictate the judgement in open Court in a matter expedited by the Supreme Court and therefore, the judgment was reserved.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed,
“Today there were 92 fresh matters, 101 regular matters, 39 fresh misc. applications and three matters listed in the additional/unlisted list-I, Il and III. Only fresh cases upto serial number 29 could be heard today. However, keeping in view the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court hearing of this matter was commenced at 4.15 p.m. and it has concluded at 7.10 p.m.”
The Allahabad High Court took serious note of the trend of life insurance policies being issued to persons on their "deathbed" through middlemen.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal also issued a bailable warrant through the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Moradabad, against the Operation Manager and Branch Head of HDFC Life Insurance Company Ltd., Moradabad, for playing 'hide and seek' with the court.